US Toughening Stance on Iraq

[Lulua]

By Arshad Mohammed

DETROIT (Reuters) - The White House on Monday cited what it said was budding international interest in toughening U.N. resolutions against Iraq, as President Bush made the case for possible military action to another skeptical ally, Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien.

Stepping up a diplomatic offensive before trying to convince the United Nations of the urgent need for action, Bush called European and Turkish leaders ahead of his meeting with Chretien along the U.S.-Canadian border.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said he saw movement on the part of the international community to toughen earlier U.N. demands that Iraq give up its suspected stockpile of weapons of mass destruction.

Fleischer spoke after French President Jacques Chirac proposed a two-stage plan that could lead to U.N. authorization of military force against Iraq.

"One thing that's clear as a result of the (U.S.) president's consulting and of the president's reminding the world of Iraq's flagrant violations of United Nations Security Council resolutions, it does appear that the movement is budding to put some force into previous U.N. resolutions," Fleischer told reporters traveling with Bush to Detroit. "Don't take it as military force necessarily."

Bush is to lay out his case against Iraq to the U.N. General Assembly on Thursday, one day after the nation marks the first anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks that first sparked his war on terrorism.

IRAQ TO DOMINATE MEETING

The name of Osama bin Laden, blamed for orchestrating the assaults on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon that killed around 3,000 people has been drowned out lately by the rhetorical campaign against Saddam Hussein.

Bush and Chretien met in Detroit at the Ambassador Bridge -- which links the U.S. city to Windsor, Canada -- to highlight efforts to tighten border security after the Sept. 11 attacks while speeding the flow of people and goods.

"A secure and efficient border is key to our economic security," the leaders said in a joint statement issued by the White House before the meeting.

The key topic, however, was expected to be Iraq.

Canada, a staunch U.S. ally, has made no secret of the fact it is cool to the idea of attacking Iraq without first working through the United Nations and its weapons inspectors to try to halt Iraq's biological, chemical and nuclear programs.

As part of the U.S. campaign, Bush aides over the weekend cited new evidence Iraq was seeking nuclear arms. Officials who asked not to be named said Iraq had tried in the last 14 months to buy thousands of special aluminum tubes that can be used in devices to enrich uranium.

Many foreign leaders have expressed reservations about any U.S. attack on Iraq, with Russian President Vladimir Putin last week saying he had "deep doubts that there are grounds for the use of force." Bush aides say the U.S. president has not yet made any decision to use force against Baghdad.

A top Canadian official on Sunday suggested Canada might not back the United States if it decided to launch a pre-emptive strike to oust Saddam.

CANADIANS UNCONVINCED

"As for going in and changing the regime, as opposed to going in and ensuring that there are no weapons of mass destruction, we haven't signed on to that," Canadian Deputy Prime Minister John Manley said in an interview on CTV.

"They'd be going in without Canadian support, but I'm not so sure they'd be going in alone," he added.

Manley appeared to take a harder stand than Chretien, who last week said he wanted inspectors "to go back and finish the job," but promised to hear Bush out.

In the week leading up to his U.N. speech, which will present his anti-Saddam case to the world, Bush has consulted the leaders of Britain, France, Russia and China to argue that the Iraqi leader must be dealt with.

Only British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who met Bush at the Camp David presidential retreat on Saturday, has voiced support for the idea of action against Iraq, saying "inaction is not a policy we can responsibly subscribe to."

Fleischer said Bush, before leaving the White House on Monday, called U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who currently holds the rotating European Union presidency. He also called the Turkish president.

Later, Bush was to call Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, and NATO Secretary-General Lord Robertson.




http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=topnews&StoryID=1427513&src=firehunt/GetContent:13

[Bodacious]

And when Hussein makes HIS preemptive strike with a nuclear weapon, what then will the other nations say?

[Asif]

Neither you, nor we, know whether Saddam Hussein has nuclear weapons or not. If he does possess them, neither you, nor we, know whether or not he will launch a pre-emptive strike.

If it is said that in the past he used chemical weapons against his own people, and so this is evidence that he will use them again, then this is 'non-evidence', for it could be argued that the United States also used nuclear weapons on civilians in the past, and therefore, it will use them again, and therefore, America's nuclear arsenal must be eliminated.

More importantly, why are you so worried about Iraq's nuclear arsenal, and not Israel's? What makes you think Israel won't use them? If someone argues Israel won't use them, then why does it possess them? If someone argues that Israel is a 'responsible nation', i say, sure, a nation that stole land, and lives on that stolen land is responsible. Sure, a nation that constantly butchers the natives of the land, it stole, is responsible.

So, we observe double standards in American foreign policy, which ought to be corrected.

And, with regards to Iraq being in violation of around 12 or so UN resolutions, Israel is in violation of ALOT more, but no attack is launched on Israel.

The arguments that are being presented in favour of attacking Iraq, are truly 'non-arguments'. We also see, that the people who present such arguments, involve themselves in double standards, i.e. hypocrisy.

[Bodacious]

The difference is, the US and Isreal won't use nuclear weapons unless attacked with nuclear weapons. Hussein will use nuclear weapons without being attacked first.

[Lulua]

Well, Bodacious...the US did in fact use nuclear weapons on civilians in civilian regions...and as a response NOT to nuclear attack, but a regular attack. Kamakaze, yes...but not nuclear. What is to keep them from doing the same again and again??

Not to mention the various forms of germ and biological and chemical warfare that was put to experiment in the Vietnam conflict.

Should we say more? There is surely much more on the record.

Can you not begin to understand?

The problem here is not who has what weapons...but basically the double and triple and quadruple and so forth standards as regards US and Israel, but not for the rest of the world.

And people are still wondering why so much animosity towards the US.

Figure it out...put one and one together...if you can...and then you will have the answers right in front of your eyes...if you would simply open them.

Lulua.

[Bodacious]

The use of nuclear weapons during ww2 was brought about because Japan refused to surrender. You do realize that they were training women and children to prepare for the US invasion of Japan? The estimated loss of life would have been over a million had we invaded.

The bombs were used to avoid such a large loss of life. It was the right decision then...and those cities were military targets. Yes, the loss of civilian life is unfortunate, but unfortunately necessary in that case.